New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

from the sopa-can-ban-ya dept

We've written about UK singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, highlighting his various songs that often cover copyright issues. His latest is an anti-SOPA song and video, called SOPA Cabana (take a wild guess what that's a reference to). Check out the video here first, and read on below about the video and why it's interesting (beyond the music/lyrics):

First of all, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Dan's not in the US, but the UK. But he recognizes how this law being debated in the US can have a significant and dangerous impact around the world. In talking about his reasons for doing a song about SOPA, Dan noted that "SOPA is abhorrent on three fronts:"

Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be.

Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property.

Thirdly, the internet is an amazing new forum for free speech and holding those in power us to account. The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for "help with themes and lyrics." After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics... and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Dan Bull is a musician. The entertainment industry and the lobbyists supporting SOPA insist that they're doing this to protect people like Dan Bull -- but Dan is quite reasonably scared of what this law will do to his ability to succeed online. Dan Bull is as well known as he is because of the internet, and his ability to share his works wherever and however he likes. SOPA would make that a lot more difficult. It doesn't "protect" Dan Bull. It helps destroy the careers of folks like Dan Bull by limiting their ability to create, promote, distribute and communicate.

Reader Comments

and that's the thing. the industries and governments dont want people like dan bull using the internet because he isn't signed for a label and doesn't make any money for them and wants to keep his right to free speech etc. the labels want to control the internet so only their stuff is available, at a stupid price. the governments want to control the internet because they want everyone to remain brainwashed and not think for themselves or pass their thoughts on to others. just waiting for the conflict to start between the 2 entities.

Re:

What you don't seem to understand is that they don't care if he does or if he doesn't. Assigning that sort of malice to government or the labels is outright bullshit, no doubt something you learned reading Techdirt.

Re: Re:

"Assigning that sort of malice to government or the labels is outright bullshit"

Yes, because we all know that government and industry have a long history of being so altruistic. History is not plagued with government malice and abuse. Most governments are so altruistic and even though clearly nefarious and malicious governments exist we must blindly accept that the U.S. government is somehow different against all intuition and evidence.

Sorry, you are wrong. Outside of the Internet the government - industrial complex already wrongfully denies competition the means to compete through all sorts of government established monopolies. From taxi cab monopolies to broadcasting monopolies to cableco monopolies to laws that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying a parasitic third party licensing fees under the pretext that someone might infringe, to insane copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions designed to prevent previous content from competing with new content, the evidence suggests you are wrong.

Re: Re:

It's not malice it's greed. They want to lock out up and coming Youtube's and Spotify's in order to [try] to control distribution, and they're looking for legislative tools they can use as barrier to entry.

They're not doing it because they're "eveil like the deveil", they're doing it to try to make sure they're the only distribution game in town.

Re: Re:

Re:

Yes and Yes !!!
I am really Jordan Kratz the only present Punk rocker who grew up in the original 1970's scene of Boston and NYC !
I am sharing a bunch of music as I give away all the music I have put out and I do allow filesharing,use on blogs,people using my music to make their own videos on youtube,etc.
I love how I am downloaded almost every day by someone and I usually seed on TPB,BTJUNKIE,etc using the public trackers.
See The GoreHounds,The Transplants (1976-79 bosotn),The Lynn Rebels, and big Meat Hammer Maine's oldest punk band(Formed 1989).
These Bigwig Labels would love to shut down everyone of us who has not signed with them.
Good luck Buttheads cause more likely those who Vote this one in will live out their lives in Infamy and will not get re-elected and people may even wake up and finally see you for what you truly are.
I never wanted to sign with a big label and never would even for a million bucks !!!
I am serious.An old school punker like me does not lie and obviously would hate these labels and my hate has gone on since the late 70's.

That second point is an incredibly good point. Even us, humans, are a product of successive DNA mutations that have been happening for millions of years.

And, like music, or films, some mutations were good, and some were bad: The "bad" ones have died away (think, Neanderthal), but the "good" ones have survived (Homo Sapiens). Likewise, bad remixes die off quickly, while good ones live on.

Re: Re:

"Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property. "

Aka, I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did.

Re:

Um, you noticed the 4-chord song up above, didn't you? Your "point" is a scarecrow, designed to misrepresent others.

Without Plato, there would be no Aristotle. Without Babbage, there would be no transistors. Without Rutherford, there would be no nuclear power. Without Franklin, the Amish way of life would be the norm. Without Waton and Crick, we wouldn't be able to cure certain genetic diseases.

Re: Re:

Not just the 4-chord song. There is a great video from a guy called Rob Paravonian about Pachelbel's Canon in D. Essentially the basic notes have been used in a ridiculously wide variety of modern music.

Of course Pachelbel is out of copyright so its all fine ;-)

(Afraid I can't link to the video as can't access Youtube from my work computer)

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

"I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did."

Indeed - I see that you have used an existing language with which to communicate. Shame on you for not creating your own. sheesh, what a grifter.

Re: Re:

In fact, if I Google the phrase "I am not creative enough to make things from scratch", I can see he robbed it from someone else's comment made on another forum in 2005! He probably didn't even donate a penny to Mike for the privilege of using his server's disk space to store his comment, let alone for the privilege of connecting to his website software to begin with! All that free HTML he downloaded in order to post - what a freetard!

Re: Re: Re:

Yes dumbass, I used existing language, but I didn't cut parts out of someone else's book.

Please, you guys are pathetic.

No, we are mostly people with a scientific/mathematical/technical education who realise the impossibility of drawing a bright line between merely "using existing language" and "cut(ting) parts out of someone else's book".

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

The term "dumbass" was first used in the late 50s. Shouldn't you pay some royalties to whatever sharp wit coined it? And the word "pathetic" wasn't a pejorative until 1937 or so - doesn't the first writer to subvert its meaning deserve credit?

Re: Re:

No kidding! Back then, Disney didn't have to pay a cent to reuse the culture defining works from his childhood, but now we have his heirs and company demanding a kings ransom for everything he touched--even the stuff he didn't actually create.

Re: Re:

Don't forget, while they're the poster boys it's not just Disney and not just animation. Look at the recent and upcoming movies - Puss In Boots, Sherlock Holmes, Three Musketeers, Conan, John Carter Of Mars, Clash/Wrath Of The Titans, Jack the Giant Killer, at least 2 film versions of Snow White.

That's just the movies based on public domain material, let alone the remakes and adaptations of other media still under (vastly, retroactively extended) copyright. But of, course, this is all created by his glorious beloved corporations rather than independent artists, so it's acceptable. Just don't you *dare* try to use any of the resulting footage without payment in the next 100+ years! God forbid future generations of artists should have the same wealth of art to draw from...

Re:

Aka, I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did.

Typical content grifter mentality.

Show us one example of a work that you would NOT call a product of content grifter mentality and you might have the beginnings of a point - however you can't - and so you don't have a point.

Re:

Everyone else has to continue working to get paid, why should you keep getting paid, into the next century, for a single work you did yesterday. No one else gets that luxury, and no one deserves it either. The only "content grifter" I see here is you, using content as an excuse to grift the public long after your dead.

Re: Re:

Re:

Hey freetard have you paid your royalties to Ford, Boeing, Toshiba, Cisco, Intel, Monsanto for using their products without paying?

And I am not talking about the first payment you made, I am talking about the payment for all the money those things enabled you to make without having it to give the producer of the tools you use to do it money.

Re: What a load of bs

Obviously you have never been creative in your whole life. Or, if you've been and state that your art depends on nothing but your own imagination, then you are a lyer or you are decepting yourself. There are *very, very* few innovations that have no "blueprint" somewhere else. I am sure if you dig deep enough (often even not so deep) you will find all the popular jokes, all the rhythms that we listen to and all the stories we read in some slight variant before whomever claims copyright on it. Just read interviews with honest artists and they usually love to tell you about their own favourite artists.
It's absolutely impossible to not be influenced by the things you hear, even less from people you admire. Taking already existing ideas in art and vary them to something new is not at all something unusual, it's the rule.

Re: Re: What a load of bs

Re:

You do understand, do you not that everything is built on the ideas and expressions of what came before. The odds after 200.000 years of humans writing that someone coming up with something entirely original are enormously against it. Even then what was written is based on stories and creations communicated orally before someone took pen to parchment or dried reeds, or a stick to blocks of clay.

Even the pyramids were built on principles discovered and used before they were constructed, not by slaves it turns out but by free people.

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Hebrews and Persians knew the world was round, not flat. Though some technically "advanced" people today insist it's flat.

Every great symphony is built on the works around it from previous compositions to folk music around it. Rock and blues and modern country owe to those who write and performed inner city black music, white and black gospel music and country and western that came before, with injections of Jamacian music particularly from the British Invasion.

And all of this isn't creative but is somehow wrong in your world because it borrowed and absorbed what came before it almost always without pay? How do you pay the guy or gal around the campfire a thousand or so years ago that first sung or played to tune to what became your favourite hymn or dance tune?

All of this means Mozart, Litz, McCartney & Lennon, Rogers and Hammerstien, Gilbert and Sullivan, Bob Dylan, Dylan Thomas, Shakespeare, the writers of the Bible, Homer and every other notable creative people and hundreds of thousands more all have "typical content grifter mentality" because they built their own works influenced by or borrowimg from those who came before both known and unknown?

Oh heck, I didn't know piracy what THAT widespread. I had no idea what it cost us and the world culturally. Now if only the RIAAs and MPAAs of the time had only stopped it! It's so horrible, it's unbelievable what it's cost us! Where was Congress, SOPA and PIPA to stop all this cultural carnage and laying waste. pillaging, rape and destruction of culture!

Oh. wait a second. It's our culture I've just described. Isn't it? All of it borrowed, recast and remixed by content grifters. Not at all a bad outcome. Pretty damned good one I'd say.

And you want to stop this? Are you nuts? Of course you are. Freeze something dynamic into something static and surrounded with amber so that it never, ever moves again, never ever creates again.

Even the English language "pirates" words from other languages when it needs them. Remember "detente"? A French word? Our language didn't trot of the L'Academe Francaise in Paris to arrange for royalties to that language. English just "pirated" it. Just as it pirated the world "chuck" meaning water from the Salish of the pacific northwest. Guess we owe them big time, too.

Either you're nuts or the rich, varied dynamic culture around us is. I vote for you as the nutty one.

The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

Well, it's not unreasonable for the owners of the infrastructure to have some say over its use is it? I don't think halting spam, malware, child porn, infringing content and counterfeit medication is tyrannical. Who is going to do that, individuals? Nor do the laws the currently govern civil society magically evaporate in the Internet space.

Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music. And perhaps if he ever gets to the level where people are wiling to pay for his music, his rights will be protected and others will be prevented from profiting from his creativity.

Re:

Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music unless the outlets he uses for distribution on the internet are all shut-down as a result of actions allowed by SOPA you mean? Love that tacit suggestion the music isn't worth worrying with that quip about paying for it. Were you always this good at being an obtuse tool or did you take lessons?

Re: Re:

Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music unless the outlets he uses for distribution on the internet are all shut-down as a result of actions allowed by SOPA you mean?

You act like his sole means of distribution are pirate sites. He can easily distribute himself, use legitimate sites, license his music, or urge sites he wants to use to not distribute infringing content. He's not obliged to only use infringing sites. This is why law makers discount your position. You act like no one will ever be able to access this artists stuff. That's simply untrue. BTW, have you done a Google search to see how he currently distributes?

Re: Re: Re:

You act like 'pirate sites' is a phrase that's not just loaded language nonsense and that the distinction between 'pirate sites' and 'legitimate sites' is a line clearly drawn in the statute and would be easily enforceable even if it were. We're talking about the same content distribution companies that sued YouTube and rank Megaupload high on 'rogue sites' lists aren't we? You're either ignorant of the history and the reality surrounding this issue or you've got a vested interest in feigning willful blindness to advance a point. So I ask again, were you always this good about being an obtuse tool or did you take lessons?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Except when an RIAA or MPAA company, life Universal Music Group, claims that the content is infringing and the site takes it down to make sure that they're protecting their asses. Sure, in the long run, that would be reversed in court, but that would be after the artist went broke fighting over it.

don't believe me - UMG just did it to Megaupload and an online News Podcast last week.

The problem with the statement that they can use "legitimate" means or websites. That's the problem, the RIAA is against using any sort of Cloud Storage or File Locker for Music Storage. They've already claimed Megaupload and Rapidshare are "rogue sites" despite the Dept of Justice saying otherwise. And they've claimed multiple times that things like Google Music and Amazon Music Cloud are illegal. So tell me, what are the other "legitimate" options that the content companies don't own and that an independent artist who still works at walmart to pay his bills can use to get started?

Re: Re: Re:

You act like his sole means of distribution are pirate sites. He can easily distribute himself, use legitimate sites, license his music, or urge sites he wants to use to not distribute infringing content. He's not obliged to only use infringing sites. This is why law makers discount your position. You act like no one will ever be able to access this artists stuff. That's simply untrue. BTW, have you done a Google search to see how he currently distributes?

Under his video he has a link to download the file... from MediaFire -- one of the sites that your bosses are hoping to shut down:

Re:

Wow. Just wow. Your first comment does nothing to address the statement being made. He's talking about policing the internet to contrl what people see and hear. And here you are, spewng about spam and malware (which people generally install THEIR OWN software to do, I don't see spam and malware prevention in an ISPs infrastructure. )

Oh, and then you tack on child porn (to make it look like you are thinking of th children) and then infringing content and counterfeit products. Well, what the fuck do the last three have to do with the first two? Absofuckinglutely nothing.

He's not talking about spam and malware, which I've already said people choose to block, and surprise, people get to pick and choose what they think is spam and what isn't.

And did you think maybe he doesn't want his rights protected to the extremes copyright grants? Not sure what uk time frames are, but life plus 70 or 90 years is pretty damnd excessive. (And not limited in my lifetime, or for that matter, anyones)

Re: Re: Re:

The point is that although ISPs do (along with the providers of OS, browser and Mail s/w) provide infrastructure to prevent spam and malware - in general the decision about what is undesirable rests with the user.

Youtube is largely porn-free because it provides tools to the user community to flag offending videos. Other video sites, with a different userbase have different standards. An individual can choose which sites, s/w etc they want to use. This is very different from giving power to the government - or worse still to private corporations to block anything on the net. Your CP example is an exception because there is >99% disapproval of CP (at least in public). That does not hold for other things.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your CP example is an exception because there is >99% disapproval of CP (at least in public). That does not hold for other things.

Both child porn and infringing content are illegal. The difference is merely the level of support for restriction. Thanks for clearing that up. The core of your objection is that copyright should not be respected.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Both child porn and infringing content are illegal."

Except one is a criminal act with severe and lasting malicious effects on the victim. The other is a civil offence with no proven lasting damage, and various studies have shown that in fact "piracy" can have a positive effect.

"The difference is merely the level of support for restriction."

I'm glad I don't live in your twisted universe where these are even remotely equal in any other way. Then again, child porn is the refuge of the moron in cases where they can't just say "Hitler", so I don't expect you to have the intellect to understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is one of those aspects which is always troubling. Laws should exist for the good of society. That is why they were created. However, in some respects they have become twisted in on themselves so that the law must be obeyed without considering whether it is actually good for the society.

You only need to look at the outcry whenever child pornography is mentioned to understand that as far as the members of most societies are concerned that is still a bad thing and should still be illegal.

When you look at the opposite of this, the casual contempt by a significant proportion of the population to current copyright laws you should realise that it is time to consider whether those laws are in fact for the benefit of society or whether they should be re-evaluated in respect to recent technological and societal changes.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is in a free society (which we should all aspire to) laws only exist because society allows them and to a degree agrees with them. Once we don't agree with them then they should be questioned and, where necessary, abandoned.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"When you look at the opposite of this, the casual contempt by a significant proportion of the population to current copyright laws you should realise that it is time to consider whether those laws are in fact for the benefit of society or whether they should be re-evaluated in respect to recent technological and societal changes."

A significant portion of society jaywalks, many on a regular basis. Yet, plenty of people are injured or killed while jaywalking every year. While a significant proportion of society holds these laws in casual contempt, I for one am glad they are on the books, and applaud when they are enforced. Sometimes a significant proportion of society isn't able to see what is good for it in the long run.

It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole.

My idea: repeal SOPA, repeal DMCA, and enforce what were the existing copyright laws. Guess what? All those websites and "mashups" you are all worried about would still be illegal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sounds like a good start to me! Throw the Bridgeport v. Dimension ruling and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act on the chopping block too, and I'd say we're well on our way towards restoring sense to copyright law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Sometimes a significant proportion of society isn't able to see what is good for it in the long run."

But you can. Got it.

"It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole."

Actually, the serious legalization arguments that I hear are all centered around improving the implications on society as a whole. Agree or disagree with those arguments all you want, but the implications are certainly being considered.

"Guess what? All those websites and "mashups" you are all worried about would still be illegal."

And without the severe damage SOPA et al causes to society! I agree with your proposal. It would be a far superior option to the SOPA path.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole.

Personally I'm in favor of legalizing many drugs and scaling back copyright infringement, but not in favor of either doing drugs or pirating stuff. I hold my positions because of the implications for society, not because I "want to get something for myself". I'm sure I'm not alone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Both child porn and infringing content are illegal. The difference is merely the level of support for restriction.

Prohibition made alcohol illegal, it did nothing to stop people from drinking (despite often rather high penalties.

Pot is illegal, it does nothing to stop pot consumption (despite often rather high penalties - hell in some cases pot gets you more jail time than murder).

Jaywalking is still technically illegal in most areas. Oral/anal sex is still illegal in places.

Cigarettes could be made illegal tomorrow (they are already massively restricted in most places, and only the massive lobby arms of Phillip Morris and related companies have kept them from being outlawed altogether) and it will do nothing to stop people from smoking.

What is technically illegal and what the majority of people consider morally acceptable are two entirely different things.

The simple reality is this: your chances of stopping file sharing are about the same as your chances of stopping marijuana use. Considering pot use is still at least as prevalent, and perhaps more so, than file sharing, and has been outlawed for a lot longer (with much harsher punishments) your chances sit somewhere around zero.

The core of your objection is that copyright should not be respected.

Copyright, if left in its originally intended form of a short term, temporary incentive, was by and large respected. And rightfully so.

Copyright, in its current form, is about as worthy of respect as a pyramid scheme. In fact, to some people, current copyright structure doesn't look (or behave) all that different from a typical ponzi scheme.

The reality is this: the more copyright extensions Disney and their kind push through Congress, the more DCMA's, ACTA's, SOPA's, PIPA's thye ram through Congress, may "strengthen" copyright from a legal standpoint. From a societal standpoint, however, is simply dilutes the integrity of copyright from the moral standpoint of most people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's insulting to equate the sexual abuse of children, and distribution of imagery of such, to downloading movies over bitorrent. It's insulting to any reasonable human being. It's insulting to anyone with compassion or a shred of morality.

I know you're using it as a polemic, to try to garner support for your paymasters unwilling to adapt, but it makes you a morally bankrupt shill, slinging bullshit for a buck instead of contributing to society.

Re: Re: Re:

His point still stands, spam and malware prevention are done at the behest of the customers of the ISP, not some third party that wants to control what content ISP customers can and cannot have access to. The situations are entirely different.

Child porn is the closest you can come to ISPs participating in the interdiction of content and I think you'll find that it's a positively laughable comparison with copyrighted content. Censorship is censorship no matter what is being censored and the only reason censorship is tolerated in the case of child porn is because society finds it so abhorrent. Not so with copyright and trademark violation which, in many cases, isn't even a crime. Furthermore the censorship of child porn is done at the behest of the government which is ostensibly working by and for the people. Again, not so with copyright and trademark violation cases under SOPA which would be done at the behest of a non-government third party.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

His point still stands, spam and malware prevention are done at the behest of the customers of the ISP, not some third party that wants to control what content ISP customers can and cannot have access to. The situations are entirely different.

ISP proactively filter for spam and malware. It's simply untrue that they only react to consumer complaints.

Child porn is the closest you can come to ISPs participating in the interdiction of content and I think you'll find that it's a positively laughable comparison with copyrighted content. Censorship is censorship no matter what is being censored and the only reason censorship is tolerated in the case of child porn is because society finds it so abhorrent.

Both child porn and infringing content are unlawful. You abhor child porn but covet free, copyrighted content. The law is still the law, and that's what you have the problem with.

Not so with copyright and trademark violation which, in many cases, isn't even a crime.

Which in many cases is and generally at least a civil infraction.

Furthermore the censorship of child porn is done at the behest of the government which is ostensibly working by and for the people.

Censoring of child porn is at the behest of the government, but that behest is in the form of a law. And is no different that the law covering infringing content.

Again, not so with copyright and trademark violation cases under SOPA which would be done at the behest of a non-government third party.

Try reading the bill. Only DoJ can act to block infringing sites, not a non-government third party.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think you have completely missed the point on spam and malware. Either that or you feigning ignorance to protect your position.

The reason ISPs and mail servers install spam blocking software on email accounts is because of market pressures to do so. In the early days of email, spam was rife on everyone's account. So those providing email services responded to customer demand for less spam by creating and installing software that detects and blocks spam. They did this because of market pressure from email users.

You can continue to pretend that it was not a public demand all you want, but you will continue to be wrong in ever respect.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"ISP proactively filter for spam and malware. It's simply untrue that they only react to consumer complaints."

Why do you think the filters were put into place in the first place, dumbass? (hint: it's to do with customer demand). Also, last time I checked, I'm free to choose an ISP that doesn't offer these, or request that my ISP disable them for my account. I'm not forced to use those services if I don't wish to.

"You abhor child porn but covet free, copyrighted content"

Yes, God forbid that someone would have a different moral standard applied to the potential (but unproven) loss of a sale and the rape of a child. You people have nowhere you won't sink to defend your corporations, will you?

"And is no different that the law covering infringing content."

Ignorance and plain stupidity are not virtues.

"Only DoJ can act to block infringing sites, not a non-government third party."

...and the DoJ have proven themselves to be in the pockets of which party, exactly? They've proven it's not the consumer.

Re: Re: Re:

Since I haven't used an ISP provided email account since 1999 or 2000, I can safely szay no ISP has ever participated in blocking spam for me.

That being said, spam filtering is turned on at my request on all of the web based accounts I've ever used.

Oh, and its never been the ISP that stopped me from surfing to a phishing site, that's been google, if I've everbeen stopped, or my selfinstalled antivirus/etc program.

So, I'm not wrong. I'm actually correct as the impliction is these are driven by consumer demad, not mandated by the goverment.

And what part of your "this is spam" doesn't back up exactly what I'm saying? Do you even know how spam filters work? You know, when I click "this is spam" google is giving me the option, not wresting it from my hands.

Re:

Re:

Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music.

Except that no service will be willing to host it for fear of being cut off from revenue streams because of a SOPA claim, or the chance that even if he DOES get it up, a competitor could take it down with a SOPA claim. The thresholds written in to the law are VERY low, and the 'penalties' for abuse are weak or absent.

Re:

"Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music"

Nothing but an anonymous source (later traced to UMG) insisting that he TOTALLY ripped off a song by another artist, and the music industry's government cronies immediately shutting him down, fining him and putting him in jail.

Re: Re:

The issue is if he in fact did rip off another song (or sample someone else, example), then he is breaking the law. Forget SOPA, forget DMCA, he is breaking the existing copyright law.

You guys are upset that the law is going to move closer to the speed of the internet, effectively getting rid of the buffer time between action and reaction. Suck it up, the gravy train is pulling into the last station.

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, let's jail the Axis of Awesome. They completely ripped off all the musicians in their 4 Chord song...but let's not stop there! Since those musicians clearly had the same 4 chords, let's jail them all!

So WHAT if I use someone else's content? The 4 chord song is a PERFECT example of a piece of art that is greater than the sum of its parts. What about Tolkien, called the Grandfather of Modern Fantasy? He wrote the Hobbit, which is basically a rip off of the legend of Beowulf (both feature as major plot points a dragon who rests on a giant pile of treasure, both dragons notice immediately when a single piece of treasure is stolen and both dragons go apeshit because of it). Yeah, let's jail Tolkien for his remix! Pack him in jail, forget about the massive contribution he made to fantasy literature.

Re:

"Well, it's not unreasonable for the owners of the infrastructure to have some say over its use is it?"

Agreed, and it's appaling how the owners of the internet infrastructure have been ignored udring the SOPA process. I'm glad you agree.

" I don't think halting spam, malware, child porn, infringing content and counterfeit medication is tyrannical. "
Agreed! Aside, you got conflation and false dichotomy in that statement, but couldn't you have worked in an appeal to authority or hasty generalization for the logical fallacy trifecta?

"Nor do the laws the currently govern civil society magically evaporate in the Internet space."
Yeah, right, cause no one has ever been sued because of soemthing they did online, and this needs to stop. The days of piracy on the high seas of the wild west information superhighway are at an end!

"Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music."
Well, ok, almost nothing. Sure it will be used to kill up and coming distribution platforms, but dan bull can always mortgage his future to sign a deal with a label who will then rip him off on residuals, so he's not, technically speaking, "stopped".

"And perhaps if he ever gets to the level where people are wiling to pay for his music, his rights will be protected and others will be prevented from profiting from his creativity."
Seriously, who cares what Dan Bull thinks anyways, since he never makes any money from his music...

Re:

He wont be able to distribute his art online anywhere if they close down the sites he distributes on. Ok he could set up his own website and upload them there but he cant afford marketing campaigns to get people to visit it. If they close down youtube and other such sites the little guys lose out far much more then they would if someone copies there music.

Look at MC Lars who openly states that music should be free he makes it clear that people and download his songs and pass them around because that spreads his names and increases his fanbase so when a tour rolls bys more people go and buy his t shirts.

Re:

I am creative enough to make things from scratch and to make tributes to things myself, i also I want the right to use other peoples stuff to do stuff within fair use, creative commons, licenced stuff etc.

Re:

Protection, huh...

The only reason why this law is coming through is not to protect the artist but the copyright system. They are trying to keep alive this dinosaur of a system, to keep the money flowing in. And one of the threats to this system is people like Dan Bull that can survive without them. Put an end to competition and keep the money coming in, that's their real plan...

It's great to see Dan's words/music/vision etc., has got you all talking/tapping. I don't pretend to understand all the points raised (partly because I'm in the good old UK) but I certainly believe in freedom.

THAT'SMYELOQUENTBOY

It's great to see Dan's words/music/vision etc., has got you all talking/tapping. I don't pretend to understand all the points raised (partly because I'm in the good old UK) but I certainly believe in freedom.